wicket-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Makundi <martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com>
Subject Re: taking the I out of Interface
Date Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:49:48 GMT
Very good point. I am worried that changing the "i" will only make
some very few core develoeprs or newcomers slightly bit happier until
they forget about that new thang.


2009/10/3 James Carman <jcarman@carmanconsulting.com>:
> For the record, I'm -1 also (non-binding of course).  We have to be
> careful here.  Tapestry got a bad reputation for changing things way
> too much between major revisions and leaving their users out in the
> cold.  It's one of the reasons I'm in the "Wicket World" these days.
> By no means do I want to stifle innovation or anything, but breaking
> compatibility should come with a rather big value-add.  In this case,
> I agree that the "I" is ugly and I actually hate it, but how much is
> it actually going to improve a Wicket user's day-to-day coding with
> Wicket.  Is it going to save hundreds of lines of code?  Is it going
> to save 20 minutes of development time per day?
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anyhow, this doesn't look like lot of people are in favor of dropping
>> I. In that case we should make sure that *all* interfaces in 1.5 are
>> prefixed in I. If we go the (imho) ugly and non conventional way then
>> we should at least be consistent.
>> -Matej
>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> is it perhaps time to take the I out of our interface names? wicket
>>> has been the only project i have ever worked on/used that follows this
>>> convention, is it time for a change?
>>> this is not meant as a flamewar about which convention is teh
>>> aw3s0m3st, simply a discussion of whether or not we should switch.
>>> -igor

View raw message